While the College plans to build two new parking lots, one just north of Stevenson and the other on West College Street, a new poll conducted by The Oberlin Review reveals that the project may be a source of contention among the student body.

Out of 65 students questioned for the poll, 48 responded in opposition to the plan. 15 students declined to choose a side out of ambivalence or lack of information, while only two supported the initiative.

Out of the 48 students who opposed the idea, four distinct themes emerged as their primary concerns.

The chosen plot of land is currently populated by a grove of native plants and animals. As the construction plan requires “removing all the trees and clearing the lot,” according to the subcontractor in charge, it seemed to some to run contrary to Oberlin’s environmentalist ethos. Sixteen students surveyed expressed a preference for nature over pavement.

“I do have a car,” first-year Maya Wax Cavallaro said. “But I don’t think trees should be cut down for me to park it.”

The second main reason students opposed the plan was that they didn’t see the multitude of extra parking spaces as necessary. A College staff member who identified himself as Frank pointed out that “there’s already a big Union Street lot that’s always empty.” Some students expressed frustration with how far that lot was from campus.

College senior Rose Reid, one of 11 students to oppose the plan for this reason, said, “I’ve had a car on campus for the last few years but I’ve never really had to go out of my way to find parking. I can’t imagine that there’s such a shortage of parking spaces. This could really be solved if more students could live off campus for the real-life experience.”

The third biggest concern came from eight students who argued that the College should discourage individual car use on campus. Junior Ian Santino voiced his opinion, saying, “They should crack down on people like me, who have cars but probably don’t need them.” A passing student pointed out, “It’s Oberlin; you can just walk everywhere.”

Students who share this view may have an ally in Executive Director of College Relations Rick Sherlock.  Sherlock was quoted in last week’s issue of the Review speaking on the College’s effort to “discourage students from bringing cars to a campus with bicycle-friendly policies.”

Six students polled rejected the plan because, though they want more parking spaces, they don’t want them in the proposed location. “There really are no lots down on South Campus,” said Conservatory first-year Greg Whittemore. “There’s that one lot across from Dascomb but the student spots are usually filled up, then those lots sandwiching Dascomb which have no student parking. How are you supposed to park at the Conservatory for example, when there’s a decent amount of students who have large instruments requiring a vehicle and there’s a very limited number of student spaces?”

College junior Meg Lindsey added, “I think they could put a few parking spaces in that grassy area by the road to the parking lot behind Stevenson, but it’s really South campus that needs more parking spaces. I’m pretty sure students outnumber staff at this school, and I know most of the staff commutes but students should still have more access to parking lots that the staff don’t always fill.”

Dean Linda Gates explained the need for a parking lot at that location by pointing out that the College plans for it to accompany a future dorm there, and recently made a commitment to providing a parking space for every two new beds.

Junior Sarah Knowles objected, “One parking spot for two beds is a bit much; because I know out of my friends definitely fewer than half have cars.” Of the 65 students polled, only 12 have cars on campus.

The two students who supported the project both did so because they felt that new parking spaces were needed on campus in a central location.

Of the 15 neutral respondents, five of them said that they recognized the existence of parking difficulties on campus, but didn’t want parking spaces installed at that location or at the expense of wildlife. Five of the respondents had cars on campus, which may have caused their ambivalence. Several others simply did not care because the issue does not affect them.

College first-year Ben Spatafora pointed out the range of solutions the College should explore: “I think an alternative that could be considered is putting the lot there and planting trees elsewhere. There are a ton of opportunities,” he said. “I don’t think it has to be a binary issue.”

The poll was conducted in the Wilder basement and Mudd’s Academic Commons. Passersby were presented with important facts about the project, such as its location just north of Stevenson, its cost of $1 million, the official explanation that it is meant to accompany the new dorm and its detrimental effects on the wildlife in that area. They were then asked whether they thought these factors made it worthwhile for the school to build a parking lot in that specific location.

Whether the administration or the Board of Trustees chooses to consider these voices in their decision-making process is yet to be seen.